Effects of wounding and fungal infection with <i>Armillaria ostoyae</i> in three conifer species. I. Host response to abiotic wounding in non‐infected roots
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary A parallel investigation to characterize host reactions involved in wound repair following abiotic injury and challenge with Armillaria ostoyae in three conifer species (Douglas‐fir, western hemlock and western redcedar) was conducted in the southern Interior of British Columbia. In this study, we characterize wound healing in roots following freezing injuries to the bark. Five weeks following wounding, all conifers developed lignified impervious tissue (IT) around killed tissue, and a necrophylactic periderm (NP) formed internally abutting IT, although IT was difficult to discern in western redcedar. Phellogen restoration in the secondary phloem of some western hemlock roots was retarded around large clusters of sclereids. Displacement of phloem fibre cells occurred in western redcedar but did not appear to delay NP formation. In roots exhibiting expansion of necrosis to the vascular cambium, callus tissue was evident at the margin of the wound. Novel host reactions in western redcedar involving induced rhytidome formation and the formation of traumatic phloem resin ducts are described.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".